Is there going to be another set of rules for Global 1940, or is Alpha3 the final one?

And, just curious, what are your guys’s opinions about this? Do you think they tried to do too much with the 1940 games? (In other words, that the idea of a 1940 setup was too good to be true)

Well its certainly showing itself… trying to marry the europe and pacific setups into one has shown to have issues… i always thought it needed to have its stand alone setup just for the global and thats what these alpha’s seem to be doing. I think someone should work on a setup that uses AA50 rule set for a simpler game play as a stepping stone to alpha setup.

Is there going to be another set of rules for Global 1940, or is Alpha3 the final one?

And, just curious, what are your guys’s opinions about this? Do you think they tried to do too much with the 1940 games? (In other words, that the idea of a 1940 setup was too good to be true)

A) There will be another set of rules. Larry and Krieghund may not write them, but there WILL BE ANOTHER SET even if the community has to write it themselves to make up for all the new SNAFUs Larry dumped on us at the last minute.

B) Other than the fact that if you play Low Luck games you have 100% chance to take England and India on or prior to Round 4 and a 99.99% chance to do it in Actual Dice Games (with that 0.01% being the dice totally going sideways on you) I see no problem.

C) If there is a 1940 Global Enhanced game I’d like to see the following:

France more like China
I. France collects double for all territories it controls.
II. If the French capitol is taken, Germany only collects half the treasury, France retains the other half.
III. If Germany captures London, France loses half it’s treasury. Theme for II and III: French transfer of funds, men and machines to England at Dunkirk (and other places to include French resistance smuggling.)
IV. France may purchase Infantry only if it’s capitol is lost and may place them in any territories they control

Russia
I. 2 Armor added to Amur. Theme, wth man, why doesn’t Russia have any COMBAT units in or near Siberia? They did in real life they should in the game too!
II. Change to Russian NO: Russia collects double for any territory in Europe (including Turkey) that they did not originally control. (Finland is now worth 5 to Russia, not 6. Ireland is worth 0 to Russia, not 3.)
III. Change to Russian NO: If Russia can draw a clear line of supply from either SZ 127 or SZ 100 to SZ 101 and without running through enemy ships, they get 5 IPC lend-lease. (A submarine in SZ 92 and a Submarine in SZ 125 will still shut down this NO. It’s not significantly harder for the Axis to achieve and it will make IL happy that now there is a southern route of resupply for Russia. Win/Win.)

3) England
I. Due to the insanely good chances of England falling before round 4, the following units are added to the initial setup:
A) +3 AA Guns, +1 French Fighter to England. (AA Guns have no attack ability, so add nothing to England’s offensive power, likewise, the French fighter is not British, so adds nothing to England’s offensive power while replacing one of the two fighters Larry took away from England.)
B) +3 AA Guns, +1 Infantry, + 2 Armor is added to India. (Theme: Holy hell, do you know how much firepowr can rain down on India from Japan? Wow! 14 Infantry, 2 AA Guns and 3 planes is NOT enough I don’t care how you slice it!)

Germany
I. Afrika Korps: To make up for increases to Russia and England and France, Germany now gets 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry and 1 Armor in Libya.
II. Submarine Interdiction: Submarines may now do 1 CRD die roll if in a sea zone adjacent to a convoy zone.
III. Wolf Packs: 3 German Submarines acting together (or more) but without any planes or surface ships now attack at 3 (4 with Super Submarines technology.)

5) Italy
I. +1 Destroyer in SZ 96 (Theme, stop England from moving ships to Gibraltar or at least make them dedicate more fighters to clearing the road.)

9) China
I. China may now take Japanese industrial complexes (or any enemy nation’s) and use them as if they were their own to buy any type of unit they so wish.

Japan
I. +1 Armor Manchuria
II. Kansu is now a National Objective. (5 IPC)
III. Siberia, Sakhe, Amur and the Soviet Far East are now a National Objective. (5 IPC)
IV. French Indo-China, Burma, Malaya and Kwangtung are now a National Objective. (5 IPC)
V. India is no longer a National Objective.
VI. New South Wales is no longer a National Objective.

11) General Rules
I. Interceptors to Bombing Runs now defend at 2 regardless of having jet power technology or not.
II. Bids for sides are restricted to bidding for more or less AA Guns. (Probably won’t get that one.)
III. Technology Tokens are restored from Anniversary into Global 1940. (If you buy a technology die and don’t get a breakthrough, you can use it again next round and the next, etc until you get a breakthrough, then you lose all your stored up dice.)
IV. Germany gets two combat movement and conduct combat phases in round 1. (ie: Purchase Units, Combat Movement, Conduct Combat, Combat Movement, Conduct Combat, Non-Combat Movement, Place New Units, Collect Income.)

Is there going to be another set of rules for Global 1940, or is Alpha3 the final one?

And, just curious, what are your guys’s opinions about this? Do you think they tried to do too much with the 1940 games? (In other words, that the idea of a 1940 setup was too good to be true)

C) If there is a 1940 Global Enhanced game I’d like to see the following:
……
…

I like your suggestions Jennifer, especially your use of French units as defense, since they’re pretty much useless for attacks, as there really isn’t enough of them. I was thinking about using a house rule of standing armies, but French units works well also, as you do not need to make many significant rule changes. The only things I don’t like are the following:

Germany - “Submarines may now do 1 CRD die roll if in a sea zone adjacent to a convoy zone.” - should be normal rules

China - I’d say that if they capture an Axis IC, they should be able to produce artillery (regardless if they control the Burma Road) and fighters (can only have a max of 3-5).

Japan - “Siberia, Sakhe, Amur and the Soviet Far East are now a National Objective. (5 IPC)” - Didn’t the USSR and Japan have a nonagression treaty? Then why would this be a NO?

General Rules - I definitely would like the return of Technology Tokens, though maybe it would be good if they cost 6 or 7 IPCs instead.

I’m not sure if I like the idea of giving Germany 2 combat phases. Maybe you could let tanks move one space, attack, then move and attack in a second battle? That way you keep consistent with movement rules, yet still give Germany an attack advantage.

Other than that, I think those are great. I think it is better for a long term game also. Great job.

Russia
I. 2 Armor added to Amur. Theme, wth man, why doesn’t Russia have any COMBAT units in or near Siberia? They did in real life they should in the game too!

i agree Russia needs something there, but 2 or 3 artillery should be enough. (also they cannot run to Moscow extra fast like tanks, so they’ll stay with the inf army, which was their purpose)

II. Change to Russian NO: Russia collects double for any territory in Europe (including Turkey) that they did not originally control. (Finland is now worth 5 to Russia, not 6. Ireland is worth 0 to Russia, not 3.)

Would be good

3) England
B) +3 AA Guns, +1 Infantry, + 2 Armor is added to India. (Theme: Holy hell, do you know how much firepowr can rain down on India from Japan? Wow! 14 Infantry, 2 AA Guns and 3 planes is NOT enough I don’t care how you slice it!)

Indeed, a few AA’s against 20+ planes is insane.

Germany
I. Afrika Korps: To make up for increases to Russia and England and France, Germany now gets 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry and 1 Armor in Libya.

I like the Afrika Korps idea, but i feel it should be 2 tanks + 2 mechs (or 1 tank + 3 mechs), inf/art would only hold back their speed, which should be the strong side of Rommel, imho.

II. Submarine Interdiction: Submarines may now do 1 CRD die roll if in a sea zone adjacent to a convoy zone.
III. Wolf Packs: 3 German Submarines acting together (or more) but without any planes or surface ships now attack at 3 (4 with Super Submarines technology.)

Interesting idea, i like it. Would make a nice general rule too, i think.

5) Italy
I. +1 Destroyer in SZ 96 (Theme, stop England from moving ships to Gibraltar or at least make them dedicate more fighters to clearing the road.)

Or SZ94

9) China
I. China may now take Japanese industrial complexes (or any enemy nation’s) and use them as if they were their own to buy any type of unit they so wish.

wow jennifer, looks like you loved playing Zeno world at war. i like alot of these rules esp. german 2 impulse attack round 1. japan should be allowed to do this 1 time any round in sneak attack. makes thinks very interesting.

Japan - “Siberia, Sakhe, Amur and the Soviet Far East are now a National Objective. (5 IPC)” - Didn’t the USSR and Japan have a nonagression treaty? Then why would this be a NO?

Interesting bit of history here. In 1927, Baron Gishi Tanaka, the Prime Minister of Japan, presented to the Emporer the “Tanaka Memorial” which was basically a detailed plan for world conquest by Japan. In it, one of the aims was to occupy and control all Russian territory east of Lake Baikal, which was bacially the eastern 1/3 of Russia. So, if you went by the “Tanaka Memorial” those four Soviet territories would make a good national objective for Japan.

Japan - “Siberia, Sakhe, Amur and the Soviet Far East are now a National Objective. (5 IPC)” - Didn’t the USSR and Japan have a nonagression treaty? Then why would this be a NO?

Interesting bit of history here. In 1927, Baron Gishi Tanaka, the Prime Minister of Japan, presented to the Emporer the “Tanaka Memorial” which was basically a detailed plan for world conquest by Japan. In it, one of the aims was to occupy and control all Russian territory east of Lake Baikal, which was bacially the eastern 1/3 of Russia. So, if you went by the “Tanaka Memorial” those four Soviet territories would make a good national objective for Japan.

Russia
I. 2 Armor added to Amur. Theme, wth man, why doesn’t Russia have any COMBAT units in or near Siberia? They did in real life they should in the game too!

i agree Russia needs something there, but 2 or 3 artillery should be enough. (also they cannot run to Moscow extra fast like tanks, so they’ll stay with the inf army, which was their purpose)

indeed, in fact I would think even the arty will make it back to moscow, but at least it cannot race back like the armor.

II. Change to Russian NO: Russia collects double for any territory in Europe (including Turkey) that they did not originally control. (Finland is now worth 5 to Russia, not 6. Ireland is worth 0 to Russia, not 3.)

Would be good

3) England
B) +3 AA Guns, +1 Infantry, + 2 Armor is added to India. (Theme: Holy hell, do you know how much firepowr can rain down on India from Japan? Wow! 14 Infantry, 2 AA Guns and 3 planes is NOT enough I don’t care how you slice it!)

Indeed, a few AA’s against 20+ planes is insane.

No, in fact here Jenn is doing the same thing I called her out on earlier. Why add more? Lets fix the change instead of continuing the mistakes with the aa gun. fixing the rule fixes all these aa gun loopholes ALL OVER THE BOARD.

Germany
I. Afrika Korps: To make up for increases to Russia and England and France, Germany now gets 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry and 1 Armor in Libya.

I like the Afrika Korps idea, but i feel it should be 2 tanks + 2 mechs (or 1 tank + 3 mechs), inf/art would only hold back their speed, which should be the strong side of Rommel, imho.

I don’t like this idea. I think that if Germany and the Axis want Rommel in Africa then they have to come up with a way to get them to Africa, not start them there. I would be okay with a proposed rule that lets Germany use Italian trns for 1 round.

II. Submarine Interdiction: Submarines may now do 1 CRD die roll if in a sea zone adjacent to a convoy zone.
III. Wolf Packs: 3 German Submarines acting together (or more) but without any planes or surface ships now attack at 3 (4 with Super Submarines technology.)

Interesting idea, i like it. Would make a nice general rule too, i think.

5) Italy
I. +1 Destroyer in SZ 96 (Theme, stop England from moving ships to Gibraltar or at least make them dedicate more fighters to clearing the road.)

Or SZ94

9) China
I. China may now take Japanese industrial complexes (or any enemy nation’s) and use them as if they were their own to buy any type of unit they so wish.

I’d prefer a few AA’s for China instead.

but we only have Chinese inf. Are we supposed to use Americans for chinese? I ask because I had to go to my old A&AE game and get all the US subs because Global did not come with enough. I think we should stick to chinese inf and american ftrs and arty. BTW, anyone have any ideas why each A&A edition has slightly different plastic colors? Why can’t they standardize the dang colors so one game goes with another??

Russia
I. 2 Armor added to Amur. Theme, wth man, why doesn’t Russia have any COMBAT units in or near Siberia? They did in real life they should in the game too!

i agree Russia needs something there, but 2 or 3 artillery should be enough. (also they cannot run to Moscow extra fast like tanks, so they’ll stay with the inf army, which was their purpose)

indeed, in fact I would think even the arty will make it back to moscow, but at least it cannot race back like the armor.

Oh good idea! Yes, instead of 2 Armor in Amur, make it 2 Artillery in Sakha. I agree, we don’t want these units blitzing back, they are there to add threat to a Russian counter attack if Japan does not stack strongly enough.

II. Change to Russian NO: Russia collects double for any territory in Europe (including Turkey) that they did not originally control. (Finland is now worth 5 to Russia, not 6. Ireland is worth 0 to Russia, not 3.)

Would be good

3) England
B) +3 AA Guns, +1 Infantry, + 2 Armor is added to India. (Theme: Holy hell, do you know how much firepowr can rain down on India from Japan? Wow! 14 Infantry, 2 AA Guns and 3 planes is NOT enough I don’t care how you slice it!)

Indeed, a few AA’s against 20+ planes is insane.

No, in fact here Jenn is doing the same thing I called her out on earlier. Why add more? Lets fix the change instead of continuing the mistakes with the aa gun. fixing the rule fixes all these aa gun loopholes ALL OVER THE BOARD.

First off, I LOVE the new AA Gun rules. It’s more realistic and I think it makes the game a lot better. Yes, adding units is to be avoided, but really, sometimes you have no choice, the options are (sometimes) add units and add counter units to balance it out, or leave a big, gaping hole. In this case, I have yet to see a strategy that can stop Japan from taking India on round 3 and it’s because they can overwhelm the guns and really pummel the crud out of India. Yes it costs them a lot of planes usually, but that’s a non-starter, they HAVE a lot of planes and without India they also have a lot less need for planes!

Germany
I. Afrika Korps: To make up for increases to Russia and England and France, Germany now gets 3 Infantry, 1 Artillery, 1 Mechanized Infantry and 1 Armor in Libya.

I like the Afrika Korps idea, but i feel it should be 2 tanks + 2 mechs (or 1 tank + 3 mechs), inf/art would only hold back their speed, which should be the strong side of Rommel, imho.

I don’t like this idea. I think that if Germany and the Axis want Rommel in Africa then they have to come up with a way to get them to Africa, not start them there. I would be okay with a proposed rule that lets Germany use Italian trns for 1 round.

Understood. I figured there would be some resistance. The German units are really to balance the new British and Russian units. Perhaps 1 Mech, 1 Arm in Libya (where they are too far to blitz to Egypt, in case you wonder why not in Tobruk with the main Italian force)

II. Submarine Interdiction: Submarines may now do 1 CRD die roll if in a sea zone adjacent to a convoy zone.
III. Wolf Packs: 3 German Submarines acting together (or more) but without any planes or surface ships now attack at 3 (4 with Super Submarines technology.)

Interesting idea, i like it. Would make a nice general rule too, i think.

5) Italy
I. +1 Destroyer in SZ 96 (Theme, stop England from moving ships to Gibraltar or at least make them dedicate more fighters to clearing the road.)

Or SZ94

Yes. I think SZ 96 is better, it adds difficulty to England, but doesn’t force them to split up their airpower allowing them to mass better.

9) China
I. China may now take Japanese industrial complexes (or any enemy nation’s) and use them as if they were their own to buy any type of unit they so wish.

I’d prefer a few AA’s for China instead.

but we only have Chinese inf. Are we supposed to use Americans for chinese? I ask because I had to go to my old A&AE game and get all the US subs because Global did not come with enough. I think we should stick to chinese inf and american ftrs and arty. BTW, anyone have any ideas why each A&A edition has slightly different plastic colors? Why can’t they standardize the dang colors so one game goes with another??

You are already required to use American Artillery pieces for China, should they ever build any, I fail to see the issue of using more American pieces. Then again, I have literally hundreds of pieces from other games I could pull in. (I like using the Fortress America ones to represent special units like Jets.)

“New” idea (as in first time I am bringing it up, not as in I thought of it first) AA Guns can fire 3 shots in round 1 and 1 shot in round 2; cost 9 IPC (to represent increased power) and require an entire transport to be moved, or can walk along the land 1 space in NCM. (Basically, cannot load an AA and an Inf) again to represent increased power of the AA Gun. It also encourages defenders to not take AA Guns as casualties first, as the second round would still negate attacking planes before they can fire again.)

I think AA-guns should start to behave just like the other units and roll one die each turn. It looks mad that AA-guns only fire at aircrafts during the first wave and ignore them the next day. I mean, a turn is like 3 or more months right, and the aircrafts go home and refuel and load more ammo between every die-rolls, right, but the AA-gun crews is a bunch of lazy retards who only do their job the first day.

So basically I think that every round of battle should start with AA-gun fire.
Each AA-gun roll one die that target one aircraft if its a hit. Then combat as usual.
This goes on and on as long as you have Aa-guns.

This certainly makes more sense than the arbitrary 3 units. Does this shot occur before the attacking aircraft get to fire? I ask because I feel that sneak shot is crucial in order to vary the dice of the attacker prior to any rolling. Not knowing how many units you’re going to have make it into the attack is a great variable.

OK here is a simple idea that might help solve the issue of London and Calcutta being too vulnerable to attacks that are excessively plane-heavy:

AA guns fire at up to 3 planes before the first round in territories that do not contain a victory city. In territories that contain a victory city, they fire at up to 3 planes before EACH round of combat.

This idea came from reading this thread so I put it here; maybe should be in House Rules.

BTW I like the idea of bids with AA guns, USSR having some artillery in Sakha, and China producing anything they want in captured ICs.

China should really only be able to produce infantry. The arty are almost too powerful but needed from a game perspective, and the ftr should be able to be replaced by the US. I could perhaps see them being able to produce aa guns if needed.

I say this because China in the 40’s was vastly different than China today. They were an agrarian economy that saw ‘commerce’ as a foreign invasion.(example, Chinese riots and attempts to nationalize foreign built rail lines, even though the peasants benefited from the rail lines and could not benefit if the lines were nationalized) When most of your population are farm peasants, pretty much all you have is manpower.

Now China did have some industrialized areas, and they were the first people in history to create a specialized cottage industry in the shanghai region, but that had been a few hundred years earlier, and modernity had not hit China in the 40s. Chinese reformers were busy trying to establish factories that would produce the things you needed just to build factories! They had a long way to go and we are now just seeing the end results today.

I agree, China at the time was agrarian and not industrial, but they would have been able to capture a factory and, if they could get supplies from India, perhaps, would have been able to use it to churn out units for themselves. Also, realistically, they would have captured some Japanese equipment, they didn’t lose every battle, you know? Just a thought, not saying it has to be or even should be, just something to consider.

I like the American rule for replacing the fighter (house rule): America lands a plane in China. After America’s next round, if the plane has survived and has not moved at all, then during China’s place new units phase they can convert the plane to Chinese. This gives Japan, essentially, two rounds to kill the thing.

Vance:

I like it, but maybe 3 shots round 1, and 1 shot each additional round - per surviving AA Gun.

I don’t understand why you all want to make AA Guns more powerful than they already are. As it is, each single AA Gun gets to fire at up to three attacking aircraft. Granted, they only hit on a “1”, but any of those hits will kill the attacking aircraft with no shots from the aircraft whatsoever. A lucky roll by the defender and it can get very expensive for the attacker, not to mention his/her ground forces losing that all important air support. Then, on top of this, after they have taken pot shots at the attacking aircraft, you can use these same AA guns to soak up hits and save actual “shooting back” units for another round of combat. In a close battle, even one or two extra hits could make the difference.
Frankly, I think they are strong enough just as they are. Fire the FIRST round of combat only. Also, for any of you that think this is not probable, consider this: by the 2nd round of combat, you could consider the two sides “fully engaged”. In other words, attacking planes and defending planes would be going after each other in the skies. In that case, you don’t want to be blasting away with AA fire for fear of hitting your own planes. It’s the same idea as cruisers and battleships only providing shore bombardment on the first round of combat. If they kept trying to bombard the shore in further rounds, they take the chance of blowing up the attacking forces.

By the way, I do think it would be cool if China could capture a Japanese IC and make artillery and even tanks. Plus, I have always thought that if the Chinese fighter were lost, USA could fly another over to replace it. In fact, since the US was supplying China with most of their war goods, I don’t see why the US couldn’t fly more fighters over to become Chinese, like say a max of 2-3. After all, it would be kind of silly for the US to fly over 10+ planes and suddenly China has this huge air force.

I don’t understand why you all want to make AA Guns more powerful than they already are. As it is, each single AA Gun gets to fire at up to three attacking aircraft. Granted, they only hit on a “1”, but any of those hits will kill the attacking aircraft with no shots from the aircraft whatsoever. A lucky roll by the defender and it can get very expensive for the attacker, not to mention his/her ground forces losing that all important air support. Then, on top of this, after they have taken pot shots at the attacking aircraft, you can use these same AA guns to soak up hits and save actual “shooting back” units for another round of combat. In a close battle, even one or two extra hits could make the difference.
Frankly, I think they are strong enough just as they are. Fire the FIRST round of combat only. Also, for any of you that think this is not probable, consider this: by the 2nd round of combat, you could consider the two sides “fully engaged”. In other words, attacking planes and defending planes would be going after each other in the skies. In that case, you don’t want to be blasting away with AA fire for fear of hitting your own planes. It’s the same idea as cruisers and battleships only providing shore bombardment on the first round of combat. If they kept trying to bombard the shore in further rounds, they take the chance of blowing up the attacking forces.

By the way, I do think it would be cool if China could capture a Japanese IC and make artillery and even tanks. Plus, I have always thought that if the Chinese fighter were lost, USA could fly another over to replace it. In fact, since the US was supplying China with most of their war goods, I don’t see why the US couldn’t fly more fighters over to become Chinese, like say a max of 2-3. After all, it would be kind of silly for the US to fly over 10+ planes and suddenly China has this huge air force.

Making AA guns more powerful (e.g. fire at 3 planes before the first round; fire at 1 plane before subsequent rounds in victory cities) would increase the deterrent to Germany and Japan slamming London or Calcutta with a big pile of planes and relatively little ground forces. It makes these attacks either more costly (i.e. in transports, tanks and the time it takes to build them) or more risky (i.e. too many expensive planes can be lost). Those planes will be needed later.

Making AA guns more powerful (e.g. fire at 3 planes before the first round; fire at 1 plane before subsequent rounds in victory cities) would increase the deterrent to Germany and Japan slamming London or Calcutta with a big pile of planes and relatively little ground forces. It makes these attacks either more costly (i.e. in transports, tanks and the time it takes to build them) or more risky (i.e. too many expensive planes can be lost). Those planes will be needed later.

So with all the talk I have heard saying that the game is unbalanced and it’s too hard on the Axis, now you want to boost the power of AA Guns so it is even harder for the Axis to advance? Sorry, I just can’t go along with that. I don’t really care much for these invasions with massive air fleets and very few ground forces either, even though I have done it myself on a number of occasions. It almost seems like cheating, especially with Japan starting out with such a huge air force. Still, sometimes you just can’t get enough ground units to the front and when you see an opportunity, you got to take it. But making AA Guns into some sort of superweapon that keeps firing on aircraft through the entire combat phase isn’t the way to cure this. Unless my cruisers and battleships can fire support each combat round. If there was a naval battle, then they don’t get to support my troops the first round of combat, but from the 2nd round on they can. Is this ludacris? Perhaps, but I don’t see it as any different than always firing AA guns.

Suggested Topics

@allweneedislove:
@Kobu:
Try it with the approved setup.
all the games i have been playing have been.
You’ve clearly been playing with the proposed changes to the Med. Apples and oranges and I’ve addressed both.

@iandemel:
tell nutbar to play by alpha 2
Most people are playing 2nd edition rules, the Alpha rules are obsolete considering that 1st edition is out of print.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=34418.0

I’d have to agree that Kamikazee just makes no sense on offense, in terms of game play. I believe the idea is to add extra defense to Japan, since they are out numbered 4 to 1 (China, England, ANZAC and America vs Japan).

In the game I played my opponent pulled off a successful sea lion but it he lost his air force in the assault as well as about 15 german ground units in the assault. I attacked him with USSR turn 4 and was able to take Norway and then landed about 12 american ground forces there after liberating UK. He was later able to retake it using his transports. US was able to take Pearl Harbor so I built a huge navy in the pacific to try and take it back but my opponent kept matching points with me so our fleets got huge.
Germany was able to recover in the fight against Russia and it was an arms race where both sides built art and inf. Italy meanwhile became a 40 point country because Africa was over run due to the fact that I had to spend all my points as UK on defending my capital and then on top of that UK was knocked out of the game for awhile. By the time UK got back in it Italy had won the fight for Africa and could now focus on attacking Russia with Germany.
I could not stop Italy from attacking Russia with USA because I had to spend all my points on navy every turn because my opponent was spending at least 60+ points to beef up his navy each turn. Eventually I was at an economical disadvantage and had to make a move. I decided to attack his navy in the pacific with my navy but I lost the fight because I rolled horrible. So I conceded at that point.
It will take more play testing Okay edits to come I have to move to a different computer brb.

@Fishmoto37:
Italy controls most of Africa after six rounds. U.K. has put up a stubborn resistance so far. But now have retreated to S. Africa. German planes have helped but may return to assist in Barbarossa.
Africa does not need much explanation. Italy rules. They are currently blocking the Indians and if the Soviets keep coming south the Germans will take advantage on the eastern front. 12/27/10